SUMMARY
The Polkadot runtime upgrade to v1.1.2 introduced an unintentional breaking change that prevented three staking accounts from receiving staking rewards across multiple eras. This proposal seeks to reimburse these accounts for the rewards they should have earned for backing validators and securing the network.
The process was detailed by core developer gpestana in multiple articles compiled in the following Polkadot Forum post:
<a href="https://forum.polkadot.network/t/recover-corrupted-staking-ledgers-in-polkadot-and-kusama/9796">Recover corrupted Staking ledgers in Polkadot and Kusama</a>
The referendum could not be proposed until the runtime upgrade to v1.4.0, which corrected the balance state of one of the affected accounts (<a href="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/pull/538">PR 538</a>).
TIMELINE
<ul>
<li>2024-02-19 Breaking change introduced in runtime upgrade v1.1.2</li>
<li>2024-03-15 Hotfix on runtime upgrade to v1.1.3.</li>
<li>2024-10-15 Runtime upgrade to v1.3.3 set the correct ledger/stash status.</li>
<li>2025-02-26 The balance issue for one of the accounts was corrected on runtime v.1.4.0.</li>
</ul>
PROPOSAL DETAILS
Each account faced a unique situation, and the analysis took into account the bonded funds at the time rewards ceased, the number of eras the payee account went without receiving rewards, and the average APY during that period.
Below is the information for each affected account:
&nbsp;
Affected account: 138fZsNu67JFtiiWc1eWK2Ev5jCYT6ZirZM288tf99CUHk8K
<ul>
<li>Payee account: 12YcbjN5cvqM63oK7WMhNtpTQhtCrrUr4ntzqqrJ4EijvDE8</li>
<li>Last era with rewards: <a href="https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/20169733-4?event=20169733-1224">1400</a></li>
<li>Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 8,556</li>
<li>Last era with no rewards: <a href="https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/23007919-2?event=23007919-627">1597</a></li>
<li>Eras without rewards: 197</li>
<li>Average APY during that period (%): 17.18</li>
<li>Missing rewards (DOT): 1,603.46</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
Affected account: 15bt67qghz8hJxCUPgAXmzVxUBHLpPN41RVm2nwMFyLWByVE
<ul>
<li>Payee account: 15bt67qghz8hJxCUPgAXmzVxUBHLpPN41RVm2nwMFyLWByVE</li>
<li>Last era with rewards: 1646 During era 1526, the stash account 14kwUJW6rtjTVW3RusMecvTfDqjEMAt8W159jAGBJqPrwwvC was <a href="https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/21972815-4?event=21972815-77">wrongly scored with 0</a> in the 'voterlist'. However, the account 15bt67 kept receiving rewards until era 1646. During era 1683, the account 14kwUJ 'voterlist' score <a href="https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/24214751-3?event=24214751-64">was updated</a> and the same account started to receive rewards at era 1684.</li>
<li>Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 4,261</li>
<li>Last era with no rewards: 1683</li>
<li>Eras without rewards: 37</li>
<li>Average APY during that period (%): 12.93</li>
<li>Missing rewards (DOT): 587.11</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
Affected account: 12gmcL9eej9jRBFT26vZLF4b7aAe4P9aEYHGHFzJdmf5arPi
<ul>
<li>Payee account: 12gmcL9eej9jRBFT26vZLF4b7aAe4P9aEYHGHFzJdmf5arPi</li>
<li>Last era with rewards: <a href="https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/20198278-3?event=20198278-112">1402</a></li>
<li>Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 7,110</li>
<li>Last era with no rewards: 1613</li>
<li>Eras without rewards: 211</li>
<li>Average APY during that period (%): 16.96</li>
<li>Missing rewards (DOT): 1,313.76</li>
</ul>

**SUMMARY**

The Polkadot runtime upgrade to v1.1.2 introduced an unintentional breaking change that prevented three staking accounts from receiving staking rewards across multiple eras. This proposal seeks to reimburse these accounts for the rewards they should have earned for backing validators and securing the network.

The process was detailed by core developer gpestana in multiple articles compiled in the following Polkadot Forum post:

[Recover corrupted Staking ledgers in Polkadot and Kusama](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/recover-corrupted-staking-ledgers-in-polkadot-and-kusama/9796)

The referendum could not be proposed until the runtime upgrade to v1.4.0, which corrected the balance state of one of the affected accounts ([PR 538](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/pull/538)).

**TIMELINE**

*   2024-02-19 Breaking change introduced in runtime upgrade v1.1.2
*   2024-03-15 Hotfix on runtime upgrade to v1.1.3.
*   2024-10-15 Runtime upgrade to v1.3.3 set the correct ledger/stash status.
*   2025-02-26 The balance issue for one of the accounts was corrected on runtime v.1.4.0.

**PROPOSAL DETAILS**

Each account faced a unique situation, and the analysis took into account the bonded funds at the time rewards ceased, the number of eras the payee account went without receiving rewards, and the average APY during that period.

Below is the information for each affected account:

Affected account: 138fZsNu67JFtiiWc1eWK2Ev5jCYT6ZirZM288tf99CUHk8K

*   Payee account: **12YcbjN5cvqM63oK7WMhNtpTQhtCrrUr4ntzqqrJ4EijvDE8**
*   Last era with rewards: [1400](https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/20169733-4?event=20169733-1224)
*   Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 8,556
*   Last era with no rewards: [1597](https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/23007919-2?event=23007919-627)
*   Eras without rewards: 197
*   Average APY during that period (%): 17.18
*   Missing rewards (DOT): **1,603.46**

Affected account: 15bt67qghz8hJxCUPgAXmzVxUBHLpPN41RVm2nwMFyLWByVE

*   Payee account: **15bt67qghz8hJxCUPgAXmzVxUBHLpPN41RVm2nwMFyLWByVE**
*   Last era with rewards: 1646  
    During era 1526, the stash account 14kwUJW6rtjTVW3RusMecvTfDqjEMAt8W159jAGBJqPrwwvC was [wrongly scored with 0](https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/21972815-4?event=21972815-77) in the 'voterlist'. However, the account 15bt67 kept receiving rewards until era 1646. During era 1683, the account 14kwUJ 'voterlist' score [was updated](https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/24214751-3?event=24214751-64) and the same account started to receive rewards at era 1684.
*   Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 4,261
*   Last era with no rewards: 1683
*   Eras without rewards: 37
*   Average APY during that period (%): 12.93
*   Missing rewards (DOT): **587.11**

Affected account: 12gmcL9eej9jRBFT26vZLF4b7aAe4P9aEYHGHFzJdmf5arPi

*   Payee account: **12gmcL9eej9jRBFT26vZLF4b7aAe4P9aEYHGHFzJdmf5arPi**
*   Last era with rewards: [1402](https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/20198278-3?event=20198278-112)
*   Last bonded balance before not receiving rewards (DOT): 7,110
*   Last era with no rewards: 1613
*   Eras without rewards: 211
*   Average APY during that period (%): 16.96
*   Missing rewards (DOT): **1,313.76**

This proposal addresses a runtime bug introduced in version 1.1.2 that caused three staking accounts to miss rewards across multiple eras. It outlines a reimbursement plan based on detailed analysis of each account’s staking history, affected eras, and estimated APY. The issue was resolved in later upgrades, with the final correction occurring in version 1.4.0.

Send a batch of dispatch calls and atomically execute them.
The whole transaction will rollback and fail if any of the calls failed.

May be called from any origin except `None`.

- `calls`: The calls to be dispatched from the same origin. The number of call must not
  exceed the constant: `batched_calls_limit` (available in constant metadata).

If origin is root then the calls are dispatched without checking origin filter. (This
includes bypassing `frame_system::Config::BaseCallFilter`).

## Complexity
- O(C) where C is the number of calls to be batched.

- **Problem Statement:** Polkadot runtime upgrade v1.1.2 caused three staking accounts to miss rewards, prompting a proposal to reimburse them.
- **Significance:** Ensuring fairness and rectifying unintended consequences of the runtime upgrade.
- **Proposed Solution:** Reimburse affected accounts based on bonded funds, eras without rewards, and average APY during the period.
- **Expected Outcomes:** Fair compensation for missed rewards, enhancing trust in the network.

#1502 Reimbursement for corrupted staking ledgers

No Active Proposals